8196

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8196
• Author: Center for Public-Private Sector Cooperation and G. S. o. P. Affairs.
• Title: Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
• USFW Year: 1993.
• USFW - Doc Type: Denver.
• Copyright Material: NO

Executive Summary
There are four endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River: the bonytail chub, the
Colorado squawfish, the humpback chub, and the razorback sucker. Habitat management is one
of five elements of the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the
Upper Colorado River Basin (RIP), which is a cooperative effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, and water
development and environmental groups to recover these endangered fishes while water
development in the Upper Colorado River Basin proceeds. This element includes the acquisition
of water for endangered fish habitat. In the State of Colorado, such acquisition will proceed in
accordance with Colorado state water law and the procedures of the Colorado Water Conservation
Board (CWCB). While one group under the RIP is concerned with developing agreements on
technical/biological issues based upon a "best science" approach, another group was asked to
identify and address the legal, institutional, and policy issues associated with the acquisition-0f
water for endangered fish habitat in the State of Colorado. This ad-hoc group came to be known as
"GURU II." To facilitate its deliberations, GURU II retained the services of the Center for Public-
Private Sector Cooperation (CPPSC), in association with the Graduate School of Public Affairs, at
the University of Colorado at Denver.
Process. The process by which GURU II worked can generally be described as a
facilitated policy implementation dialogue. Essentially, a given set of stakeholders were charged
with identifying and addressing institutional, legal, and policy issues related to the instream flow
needs of the endangered fish species.
The process entailed the use of trained facilitators and a knowledgeable expert to keep the
group focused and to provide the structure within which disagreement could be contained until
agreements were reached. Briefly, the structure provided by the facilitators included moving from
underlying premises (fish recovery and water development together) and goals to criteria and,